I world argue that it's more akin to filtering out the chit-chat with the patient, where the doctor explained things in an imprecise manner, keeping only the formal and valid medical notation

▲

caddemon 10 months ago | parent | next [-]

There is no legitimate reason to make an illegal move in chess though? There are reasons why a good doctor might intentionally explain things imprecisely to a patient.

▲

hnthrowaway6543 10 months ago | parent [-]

> There is no legitimate reason to make an illegal move in chess though?

If you make an illegal move and the opponent doesn't notice it, you gain a significant advantage. LLMs just have David Sirlin's "Playing to Win" as part of their training data.

	▲	fluoridation 10 months ago \| parent [-]
		You raise an interesting point. If the filtered out illegal moves were disadvantageous, it could be that if the model had been allowed to make any moves it wanted it would have played to a much worse level than it did.

▲

ses1984 10 months ago | parent | prev [-]

It’s like the doctor saying, “you have cancer? Oh you don’t? Just kidding. Parkinson’s. Oh it’s not that either? How about common cold?”

▲

falcor84 10 months ago | parent [-]

Big the difference is that valid bad moves (equivalents of "cancer") were included in the analysis, it's only invalid ones (like "your body is kinda outgrowing itself") that were excluded from the analysis

▲

ses1984 10 months ago | parent [-]

What makes a chess move invalid is the state of the board. I don’t think moves like “pick up the pawn and throw it across the room” were considered.

	▲	toast0 10 months ago \| parent [-]
		That's a valid move in Monopoly though. Although it's much prefered to pick up the table and throw it.